July 22, 2006

They gave their name to the Massachusetts case that required the state to allow persons of the same sex to marry, and now they have separated. Julie and Hillary Goodridge lived together for nearly two decades. They began their lawsuit -- with two other couples -- in 2001, and they married two years ago, after they won the right they fought for. Who can know whether it was the pressure of the lawsuit that broke them up? Perhaps even marriage itself hurts a relationship, especially if you'd become very stable in the unmarried state. It must be painful to try to deal with private problems when you know you symbolize something to the general public.

They have not filed for divorce. I can see why you would choose to stay married even as you go their separate ways to try to avoid having everyone opine wildly about you and draw all sorts of conclusions about the cause you believe in. But now the separation has gotten attention, and people will say all sorts of things. But if you support same sex marriage, it shouldn't be because gay relationships meet some higher ideal that heterosexual relationships. It's a matter of equality, and that includes the potential for breaking up.

Let's hope they patch things up, if for no other reason than the best interests of the child, assuming of course the cause of separation is nothing more than irreconcilable differences.

The separation is an unhappy thing but, with it, some advocates of same sex marriage might finally notice the ultimate benefit the government provides to those who purchase a marriage license: adjudication of equitable distribution and spousal support.

Unserious. Publicity-seekers. Just an act.To make a point, not because they actually believed it. Performance art.Merely a protest.To remedy an inequality they had not suffered.

They deserve opprobrium for this. Yes, it's hard to stay married, sometimes very hard. That's why some people consider it the bulwark of civilization, the 'little platoons' (and here I mean children) that gave rise to the West and its fruits, and therefore sacred.

But the selfish and sort-sighted demand all the benefits for none of the work, want to be 'married' but under a new definition. Want legitimized what is illegitimate. Want what they want beacause they want it and right now, damn the consequences.

I'm supposed to look at these folks as 'pioneers' of some necessary cause but merely cluck 'oh, well' at their failure to follow through?

Bastiat identified this common error thus:"...an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause -it is seen. The others unfold in succession -they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference -the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, -at the risk of a small present evil."

The Goodridges, like many on the left, focused only on the immediate desired effect, and either ignored or were blind to the long-term effects - to them personally, and to the community as a whole. Their separation belittles their efforts. While it won't cause a ripple among the true believers, it adds to the erosion further downstream.

Icepick,I disagree. Marriage is far harder than merely 'staying together'. I know couples who lived together for years, but couldn't go the distance and actually get married, or fell apart after marrying. Commitment in marriage is difficult, especially when children are involved.

As a result, I think they've demeaned marriage, which was their true purpose.

From GLAD: "On this historic and joyous day, GLAD celebrates the realization of marriage equality in Massachusetts. We are so happy for the loving same-sex couples who may, now, finally, fully protect their relationships and families under the law and take responsibility for one another's lives."

Except, you know, when they change their minds. They have succeeded only in furthering the idea that marriage vows, and marriage itself, is a meaningless construct.

Bissage: "...if for no other reason than the best interests of the child."

Indeed.

I too hope they're able to patch things up. And I agree with you about the benefit of adjudication of equitable distribution and spousal support. But the ultimate benefit of marriage license, it seems to me, to both the marrying partners and to the rest of society, is as you pointed out, the protection and support of dependent children of the marriage. Unfortunately, this line from the linked-to article can be taken as an indicator that the couple will likely fail to make highest priority their child's best interests:

"The couple and their daughter, Annie, 10, became spokeswomen of sorts for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, making their lives public in an effort to show that they were like any other couple who wanted to marry."

What sort of "any other couple" - gay, straight, or otherwise - who want to marry, make their ten year-old child a "spokeswoman of sorts" for any public cause?

from the article: “This is the maturation of marriage,” Ms. Breslauer said. “They made an enormous contribution toward marriage equality, as did the other plaintiff couples. This in no way diminishes their contribution.”

Perhaps. But I think, all things being equal in terms of sexual orientation, an argument could be made that selfishness and egocentrism can easily diminish any contribution toward any kind of equality.

Re: "And how does this make them different than any he[t]ero couple that gets divorced?"

Proponents of gay 'marriage' seek to redefine the term itself, to eradicate a tradition of understanding about what marriage is, one based on the union of man and woman for the purpose of raising children.

Similarly, the left has meddled with welfare and nearly destroyed the black family, it meddled with college diversity and provoked balkanism, it meddled with crime and created the hell of New york in the 1970s and 80s, it meddled with truth and created Foucauldian teachers like Barrett, it meddled with economies and brought nations to their knees (and killed of millions of citizens).

You'd think such a series of awful failures would serve as a cautionary tale about meddling in the delicate structure of the family.

The difference?One is a failed attempt at continuing a tradition (and getting out of marriage should be harder than it's become), the other is a mockery of same, meant to degrade its importance. One is king, the other, jester.

Pogo said, "Proponents of gay 'marriage' seek to redefine the term itself, to eradicate a tradition of understanding about what marriage is, one based on the union of man and woman for the purpose of raising children."

Opponents of gay marriage seek to define a term itself, to create a tradition of understanding about what a marriage is, one based *exclusively* on the union of man and woman for the purpose of raising children.

Re: "...you think they should get back together and ride this bad spell out?"

I'm saying you're missing the point entirely.

Their behavior points to the two people who were serious mainly about their rights, not about what marriage actually means. The harm to their child is something even further down the list of importance, far behind being "spokeswomen".

This was a marriage meant as a poltical act. As such it denigrates marriage, which was the ultimate intent (as stated by feminist and leftist theorists from Marx through the 1980s).

Marriages work better when they are not subject to enormous amounts of scrutiny. Entertainers, professional athletes, and politicians have much higher divorce rates than the general population. Its not because they're selfish, or that they have warped values. Its just that when cameras and reporters are always prying into your life, and everything you or your child does can potentially make headlines. People like Pogo might say that these people brought attention on themselves by filing the lawsuit. But you can say that about anybody whose career puts them in the public eye -- my friend Sean could have CHOSEN not to play in the NFL, but why should he forego something that means that much to him?

Re: "First things first: Pogo, you're a mouth-breather."Leading off with an insult (especially an odd one) is a curious method of argument, Terry. It suggests immaturity and ignorance, and leads one to ignore subsequent statements. You're a law student I see, so maybe you have time. Good luck (I hope it's not already third year).

Re: "Marriages work better when they are not subject to enormous amounts of scrutiny. ...Its not because they're selfish, or that they have warped values."

Of course, but it's beside the point, missing my argument entirely. I made no effort to suggest why their 'marriage' didn't last. Frankly, I don't care. The effect their political theater has on real marriages is, however, of great concern to me.

I don't much care about what happens to the Goodridges. Stay together, separate, it's of no interest to me at this point. I'm not trying to be 'pleased' about their future.

Rather, I was making arguments against gay marriage, and pointed to their brief marriage because it exemplifies why the whole issue is a sham, mostly performed for political purpose, with the ultimate intent being the eventual destruction of marriage as the cradle of civilization. Instead, it will become a mere contractual arrangement, and the West will erode even further.

But now the separation has gotten attention, and people will say all sorts of things. But if you support same sex marriage, it shouldn't be because gay relationships meet some higher ideal that heterosexual relationships. It's a matter of equality, and that includes the potential for breaking up.

Hmm, the problem is, defenders of traditional marriage will use this as proof of the link between a very liberal attitude toward marriage and broken family structures that harm children; in other words, it isn't just same-sex marriage that is the problem, it's no-fault divorce and the highly individualistic attitude toward marriage that sees it as a transient means of maximizing individual happiness at the expense of others. So the reactionary response will be not only to declare this proves same-sex marriage is no good, but that no-fault divorce is no good, and the same attitude behind both projects is corrupt. "See? It has nothing to do with gay people! It has to do with frivolous people who don't take vows seriously." I have no idea whether that statement meet the "crazy" test, but I suspect it will be said.

"...unlike Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., Hilary and Julie seemingly lacked the desire to be high-profile public advocates. All they wanted to do was to be left alone.

I've always had the sense that the vast majority of gays and lesbians in Massachusetts and elsewhere simply want to be left alone--to live their lives anonymously and in peace, and not to receive either punishment or preference because of their sexuality. However, possibly as a result of this attitude, American homosexuals have failed to produce a credible leader who can successfully advocate on their behalf. The reason why so many states have moved to ban gay marriage is because the most compelling moral arguments concerning gay marriage are made by opponents of the concept. There is literally no 'main-event' figure out there today that can make the public moral case for same-sex marriage..."

In what way does homosexuals being allowed to marry tarnish the definition and the meaning behind your personal marriage? Are you and your wife so insecure in your commitment to eachother that you need to express such great concern in what others are doing? If you feel so damn pride in the wonder and sanctity of marriage, then go spend time with your damn wife and make your marriage the best damn marriage it can be. Leave everyone else out of it. 'MARRIAGE' is whatever the hell YOU want to make it.

I often encounter comments like "Are you and your wife so insecure in your commitment to each other... etc., etc.". Ad hominem statements are fallacious arguments. You need to take a logic class. But ask yourself, if marriage truly was "whatever you make it", would the ability to marry your pet dog affect what people consider 'marriage' to be? If not, why not?

The comment "If you feel so damn pride in the wonder and sanctity of marriage, then go spend time with your damn wife..." however is even funnier, but not just for the poor grammar. It just reeks of hate, from the party of tolerance.

And finally, "'MARRIAGE' is whatever the hell YOU want to make it." How foucaldian. And that is my point, in fact. Redefining marriage so it's whatever you want it to be makes it meaningless. So we agree then.

Pogo, aside from the idea that you think you know the motives of the Goodridge's (perhaps better than they do themselves) you seem singularly befreft of positive alternatives for same sex couples (with or without children).

You're clear about what you don't want (SSM) and offer no alternatives for the legal protection of same sex partners (and their children).

SSM is an idea with an increasing supporter base (still in the majority but slowly growing) just grumping about people destroying an institution isn't enough, the best argument against SSM would be something that fits the needs of same sex couples and their children better. Any suggestions?

And I made no comment or supposition about the Goodridge's motives, rather I commented on their behavior. Their motives are unclear, except when they spoke of themselves as 'spokeswomen', I suppose. Regardless, 'motive' is beside the point. What possible motive could excuse the denigration of marriage?

Finally, re "increasing supporter base". Meaning what exactly? That the popularity or frequency of a behavior is some measure of justification or correctness? Balderdash. lots of people believe in astrology (and, apparently 9/11 conspiracies). Sometimes the truth is quite unpopular.

I recall: Leading off with an insult (especially an odd one) is a curious method of argument, Terry. It suggests immaturity and ignorance, and leads one to ignore subsequent statements. from a certain someone, but I won't name any names. A grammatical error! I do apologize!

What part of If you feel so damn pride in the wonder and sanctity of marriage, then go spend time with your damn wife... is hateful? Take out the damns and nothing else reeks of hatred at all. Also, I believe you've seen this argument time and time again because it's true. You're spending so much time sitting here and arguing about what marriage shouldn't be, and I'm sure you go off and do the same in your real-life conversations, where is your wife in all this?

Also, I'm not saying that the term marriage should be redefined by anyone who wishes to do so. I'm saying you should go make your marriage live up to the high glorious standards for marriage that you have set in stone in your mind. I have read the bible and do recall several men having multiple wives, so I think this claim of the sanctity, honor, tradition of marriage throughout time until now is a bit of a crock. It's a simple excuse for you people who find same sex marriage to be disgusting to fight against it. The problem with your argument is that if marriage is indeed the glorious blessed tradition that you claim it is, then straight people across the country and the world have been desecrating its good name for decades. I can't quote you any actual statistics, but I am pretty sure the highest divorce rate in the US is in the so-called bible belt, or more importantly, "right" country.

The fact of the matter is that you are never going to agree with what I say or with what proponents of same sex marriage say; however, you could go on living your own life the way you believe your life should be lived without spewing all your hatred around. YOU are the one who sounds hateful. The argument that you have against same sex marriage ('marriage' is a covenant between man and woman) is laughable at best because you target one group destroying the sanctity of your sacrement, but what about the heterosexual people doing the same thing? Go fight with them.

I'm cool with civil unions. SSM _is_ a fairly large change (I'm in favor of it but I recognize it's a big change) and I think something like civil unions is a good starting point to reassure people that the sky won't fall.

I read: "I was making arguments against gay marriage, and pointed to their brief marriage because it exemplifies why the whole issue is a sham, mostly performed for political purpose, with the ultimate intent being the eventual destruction of marriage as the cradle of civilization."

and assumed that you were saying that the Goodridges (and maybe other SSM supporters) were intent on the eventual destruction of marriage as the cradle of civilization. What were you trying to write.

The only reference to the Goodridges I saw (here) as 'spokeswomen' was made by a journalist and not themselves.

Finally, I let my last through with a mistake, it should be:"SSM is an idea with an increasing supporter base (still in the minority but slowly growing)" this simply means that while the majority is still opposed to SSM most polls (I'm aware of) show that those that support SSM are (slowly) increasing in number and that opponents either need to find better arguments or come up with positive alternatives.

Re: "What were you trying to write"There is a long history of marxists and radical feminists set out to destroy marriage and the family.

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women's Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."— Sheila Cronan

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men."— The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971

"Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women."— Is Marriage the Answer?by Barbara Findlen, Ms magazine, May-June, 1995

"[The nuclear family is] a cornerstone of woman’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation."— Alison Jagger, Feminist Politics and Human Nature

"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male."

"The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society."— Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State(New York, International Publishers,1942) pp.58, 67]

"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare."— Female Liberation, by Roxanne Dunbar.

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. — Functions of the Family,Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.

"All the discriminatory practices against women are patterned and rationalized by this slavery-like practice.We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.— Sisterhood Is Powerful, Robin Morgan (ed), 1970, p. 537:

Pogo: I was making arguments against gay marriage, and pointed to their brief marriage because it exemplifies why the whole issue is a sham, mostly performed for political purpose, with the ultimate intent being the eventual destruction of marriage as the cradle of civilization... There is a long history of marxists and radical feminists set out to destroy marriage and the family.

I've never seen anything that suggests the Goodridges are radical femininist Marxists. Nor are other same sex marriage advocates. I'm not sure why people bent on 'destroying marriage as the cradle of civilization' would choose support for same sex couples as their means.

To say that support for same sex marriage is a sham disguising a secret plot to destroy marriage because some Marxists criticize marriage makes as much sense as saying that the World Trade Center attack was secretly planned by Cheney and company because some conservatives were eager for a new war.

Pogo: Oh how hideous! The awful things people are saying in those quotes! Equality between women and men??! Economic independence for women?!! The horror!!

For the record, I don't want marriage abolished; I believe that it is possible for a man and a woman to live together without one stomping all over the other. But in all these quotes, these people have a publicly known reason for wanting marriage done away with. Gay couples don't write books about how much they despise marriage, and I definitely haven't heard of any gay marriage activists mentioning the abolition of marriage as something beneficial to their goals. If you believe that because thirty years ago somebody belonging to a group that you don't like, a group that has nothing to do with gay marriage, wrote something about how marriage is evil and should be destroyed--because of that gay people should not get married...well, I think your logic class has failed you :( But I'm not really an expert--maybe policing other people's posts for naughty language is in fact more important than being relevant. Gay couples are not necessarily Marxists nor feminists, though I can see where you made the mistake. I don't like secretaries and I don't like Republicans, so I am constantly getting them mixed up! All Republicans are secretaries, right? Not the other way around?

As for liberals being part of the "party of tolerance"... Tolerance, to me, means not hating people just for being different--accepting everyone, no matter what race or religion or sexual orientation, for who they are. It has absolutely nothing to do with coddling an individual's paranoid conspiracy theories, and in no way prevents liberals from pointing out a bigoted twat when they see one.

Re: "... in no way prevents liberals from pointing out a bigoted twat when they see one."Thanks, bosox, how elegantly argued. Your initial paragraph wasn't bad, actually, but you ended in pure leftist vitriol, thereby undoing your efforts. Oh well.

I was arguing that the left has long hated marriage as a concept and institution. It sought to do away with marriage and the family by any means necessary. This is one of those means: defining it away, as a meaningless contract, designating nothing at all. I'd say it was pretty successful.

Interestingly, people have already forgotten how new the idea of gay marriage really is, and how until very recently gay activists denigrated the idea, for many reasons. Somehow, people who now oppose it are "bigoted twats" (curious term for such a tolerant soul as yourself, BTW; I didn't know being a woman's genitals was such a horrible thing; do women think so?).

Your inability to see how the family is important to civilization is regrettable, but a common error.

"Your inability to see how the family is important to civilization is regrettable, but a common error."

I love this sentence. By being opposed to gay marriage, you're saving civilization? Correct me if I'm wrong, but two parents plus a child--that would be a family. From what little I know about the Goodridges, they seem to have been a family. I know you're going to have lots of questions, like maybe "But how do two women live together when they're both going to naturally want to do the dishes?" Don't be shy; ask away!

Also, name some anti-gay-marriage gay activists and the many reasons why they oppose gay marriage. I hope you can find something more intellectual than "gays, Marxists, and feminists are the same thing; Marxists and feminists believe x, so gays must too and thus they should not be able to get married". Maybe you can also think up a reason why, because a few gay people disagree with gay marriage, gay marriage must be wrong. It almost sounds like a fallacy, in fact :(

PS: Personally, I call mine a vagina, but that's probably because I'm not eight years old and embarrassed by real words. Imagine I called you a dick--would you suddenly get all indignant because I violated men's rights and the penis is actually a majestic organ, etc. etc.? Be careful; you were starting to sound like one of those hypersensitive liberals for a moment.

Probably the most important benefit that gay couples get with the right to marriage is the "right to divorce". Should the Goodridge's proceed with a divorce, the laws will allow an equitable division of assets as well as a custody agreement with the child that is fair.

If there were no legal remedies in place, one spouse could, for example, simply pick up the child - move to a bigoted state like Virginia - and prevent the other spouse from ever seeing the child again. Surely that is not in the best interest of the child - let alone the betrayed spouse.

Re: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but two parents plus a child--that would be a family."

You are wrong, in equating the results of any mere grouping of adults-plus-child with the superior married-male-female-child tradition.

The key difference is in what's best for children overall, not what's best for bosox. By your definition, the two drifters who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart formed a "family". (Interestingly, that's what they thought as well. Brilliant minds think alike.)

Re: "PS: Personally, I call mine a vagina, but that's probably because I'm not eight years old and embarrassed by real words."

You do? I am actually interested then in why you called me a "twat". I've haven't used the word since I was maybe 10, and I'm fascinated that an adult female would use it as a term of denigration. What gives? Is that some sort of progressivism? Do liberals call each other that as a form of endearment? Or is it some kind of acronym? Seriously, what was the meaning there, if not that calling someone a vagina means something bad?

I did not write anything about "adults-plus-child". I used the word PARENTS, which incidentally are not crazed fundies who take children from their homes at knifepoint, rape them and pretend to get married to them. How is it not good for children to live with parents who love them, regardless of their gender?

"You do? I am actually interested then in why you called me a 'twat'."

Why does what I call my vagina have any relevance in the derogatory names I call you? Here, let me give you a short lesson in slang: it's a pissing contest, not a urine contest. People that cut you off in traffic are fuckers, not sexers. And you're a twat, not a vagina. Okay?

"I've haven't used the word since I was maybe 10, and I'm fascinated that an adult female would use it as a term of denigration."

Funny--I'm absolutely fascinated that someone who hates Marxists, feminists and homosexualis magically transforms into the worst kind of stereotypical sniveling liberal over one word.

Again: if I called you a dick, would you be outraged over my disrespect to men?

Re: "Parents". Why should your definiton hold here? Since redefinition of terms is desired by the gay community for "marriage", why limit such redefinitions? Why can't people be "parents" whenever they want to be so considered? Isn't denying them that basic right evidence of intolerance?

Re: "a short lesson in slang"I still find it odd that a liberal woman would find a slang reference regarding a vagina not only derogatory but an appropriate weapon in conversation with a stranger. Again, I don't find it offensive, just strange.

I don't know that it bothers me much at all, (mostly because I'm not sure what you mean by using it, I really don't) and neither would being called a "dick". It just leads me to question your judgement and maturity in doing so. Maybe you have Tourette's, or maybe you're just flailing about, I can't tell. You seem intelligent enough, then out of the blue you say "yer a poopyhead", like it means something. What's your point?

P.S. I don't hate marxists or radical feminists. I think they're wrong. I don't hate gay people either. I don't like gay marriage, which is a diferent issue. But you like to conflate "disagree" with "hate" for unclear reasons, likely inadequate preparation, ignorance, or a lack of alternative arguments save for epithets.

Parents are people who nurture and raise children. If someone loves a child, feeds that child, provides for that child's needs, and guides and protects him or her and all those other nice relevant verbs--that person is his or her parent. Sexual orientation and marital status have nothing to do with it. Someone who abducts and rapes children obviously does not fit the criteria for good parenting. Insinuating that a child rapist and a gay person have the same parenting ability is a thousand times worse than calling a stranger a twat. (I believe that you don't hate them, though; you must write things like that with a heart brimming with love and tolerance, I'm sure.) Your priorities are simply bizarre.

"Maybe you have Tourette's, or maybe you're just flailing about, I can't tell."

Yes I have Tourette's; how did you know. I used a bad word which was relevant in context and then discussed my decision to do so in depth, and it was obviously all just a tic. What was I thinking? Where's my medication??

"...likely inadequate preparation..."

Oh no, you caught me :( I did it because I forgot to study my notes on Pogo from the Internet's Althouse comments :( I promise I'll try harder next time!!

Re: "Insinuating that a child rapist and a gay person have the same parenting ability is a thousand times worse than...."

No such insinuation was made, of course. I stated that if redefinition of the term "marriage" is permissible, then redefinition by other groups, whether honorable or hated, is similarly permissible for other terms. And why not? Why should your definiton of "parent" hold here, if terms are just words that mean whatever we want them to mean?

And what exactly is a "bad word which was relevant in context"? Was 'vagina' relevant somehow to the "paranoid conspiracy theories" you were accusing me of?

I'm not playing dumb. I understand you less with each post. I thought you were just throwing out a cheap insult, and chose one I don't run across much, and haven't heard in years. And I was (was) amazed that women would find their genitals an object of disgust. Now I know. Sheesh.

From dictionary.com, the definition of a parent: "One who begets, gives birth to, or nurtures and raises a child; a father or mother."

Name one reason why this definition would have to change in order for gay people to be parents.

"And what exactly is a 'bad word which was relevant in context'?"

I meant, maybe you can accuse me of having Tourette's if my first post ended with "TWAT TWAT TWAT"; otherwise, it is inappropriate since I only used one naughty word and it was in a legitimate sentence. By the way, why is it not okay to say "damn" but it is okay to insultingly diagnose people with real medical problems when they do something you don't like? I kind of like it though...you remind me of someone with irritable bowel syndrome LOL! And by the way you wrote "Why should your definition of 'parent' hold here..." I can tell that you have an anal fistula and it needs prompt medical attention!

Oh my god. When I called you a twat, I wasn't referring to vaginas at all; I was referring to the hateful moronic things you wrote. This is a difficult concept for some, but maybe if you try really hard you can wrap your mind around it: sometimes, words have lots of different meanings. I can imagine this conversation if we were talking about a committee instead of gay marriage: "What are you talking about?! A chair is something you sit in! Stop redefinining words!!!!!!!!"

"And I was (was) amazed that women would find their genitals an object of disgust. Now I know. Sheesh."

This is bizarre, patronizing toward women and maybe a little sexist. If I called you an asshole, would you be amazed at how poorly I think of my anus? If I called you a dick, would you be hurt that I don't take men seriously? I don't want to know if these words offend you. I want to know whether you would start lecturing about sphincters and penises. Nobody thinks that men need to be sheltered from the word dick, yet all women should find the word twat disgusting.

That's from the American Heritage Dictionary, and any form of same sex marriage is not legal in most of America. What is your point, again?

Nice job answering the questions from my last post, by the way. I guess that I can add ADD to the list of medical conditions that you must have. Or will you be back to finish your post after you pass that kidney stone?